Jeffrey Overstreet: Not yet. I need time to reflect on a film as challenging as this one.I need discussion. I need to see it again.

Reviewing movies is a tricky business. It’s like recommending a pair of shoes to an audience. The shoes may be well-made, but people may dislike their style or misunderstand their purpose. Even the best shoes will only fit certain people.

JO: Confused me. I didn’t understand their purpose. Sometimes it seemed the storyteller wasn’t sure where to go next. But hey, I’d rather followa risk-taking explorer than a by-the-numbers crowd pleaser. Complicated art films often puzzle me at first, but subsequent viewings are usually quite revealing. Many of my favorite films didn’t work for me until a second, or sixth, viewing.

Interviewer: I saw The Master too. Thought it was disgusting. Right away, we have to watch a soldier sculpt a sandcastle woman and then fake having sex with her to the amusement of his fellow soldiers. Then he walks into the ocean and—

JO: Yeah, I remember Freddie’s ugly sexual antics. He’s driven by lust. He’s a womanizer. And he’s perverse when he’s on a testosterone high around other reckless men.

Interviewer: I don’t need to watch that stuff.

JO: You certainly don’t. If the movie troubled your conscience, you were right to leave.

Interviewer: But you stayed. There’s no excuse for that.

JO: Hold on; let’s not get judgmental. What’s offensive to you may be, by my lights, a meaningful part of a whole. And what you enjoy every week—say, professional football—might provoke me to anger or expletives. I think it’s in First Corinthians: “Everything is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial. . . . Everything is permissible for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.”

Interviewer: What could possibly be beneficial about such an ugly movie?

JO: I believe we’re shown Freddie Quell’s pathetic misbehavior so that we’ll ask, “Why does he behave this way?”

One possible answer: He’s almost perpetually drunk on cocktails he’s made from fuel and paint thinner. So we might ask, “Why does he drink like that?”

Consider this—Freddie’s nation, his “Master”—sent him into war, into trauma, into horrors he can’t shake. When he returns, doctors test his mental health, but fail to provide the help he obviously needs.

Also, he’s burdened with memories of a troubled family history. He’s explosively angry around those who enjoy the success, the family, the blessings he’s never likely to obtain. (As a photographer, he sees so much that’s beyond his reach.)

And the war took away something he thought was true love.

Maybe he drinks to numb the pain.

Interviewer: It’s all so awful and depressing.

JO: Sure. Brokenness, depression, sexual obsession, alcoholism, violence—all rich subjects for artists to explore in search of understanding. There are people like Freddie all around us.

And that’s all prologue.

Freddie then stumbles drunkenly into the influence of a sanctimonious philosopher named Lancaster Dodd. Dodd’s impressed with Freddie’s cocktail experiments. It’s like what he does—mixing religious ideas into intoxicating philosophies. He wins many followers eager to numb their own pain, put their pasts behind them, and pursue perfection.

But even though Dodd enlists Freddie as a guinea pig, it’s obvious that Freddie isn’t getting better under his new master’s care. He becomes like Dodd’s trained monkey, stuck in a cage that he reinforces with reckless behavior.

Dodd’s in a cage too—he made it himself. He’s surrounded by admirers, not friends, who sometimes believe in his ideas more than he does.

So it’s a story about a wretch who, like me, wants to get better, but repeats his mistakes. And it’s about an egomaniac who, like me at my worst, exploits others for his own success.

Which man is more monstrous?

Interviewer: What good can possibly come from such a sick and twisted movie?

JO: I don’t think the movie is sick and twisted. I think it’s an observant film about sick and twisted people. Rather than moving through their pain, they numb it with alcohol, testosterone, ego, and control issues.

Again, if such stuff troubles your conscience, steer clear. But Freddie’s frightful lust may work like the murder Hamlet stages for a royal audience: It can force arrogant and lustful men to see themselves in the mirror.

Further, Freddie and Dodd’s relationship can offer useful, powerful reflections of what can happen between fathers and sons, teachers and students, bosses and employees, pastors and congregants, leaders and nations.

Someone suggested that Freddie might even be a younger version of Dodd, come to haunt him. Maybe Dodd is seeking to control and reform his younger self—one delusional and dangerous man influencing another.

Interviewer: You don’t know who I am, do you?

JO: I do. You’re my younger self.

You used to stand up in church and rant about the evils of “worldly” art. You condemned whatever made you uncomfortable.

But thanks to trustworthy teachers and inspiring artists, you will learn to recognize the difference between condoning evil and exposing it. From the Bible, Shakespeare, Flannery O’Connor, and more, you’ll follow monstrous characters toward the consequences of their hypocrisy, lies, lust, and self-righteousness.

You see, I learned a lot about light by thinking about shadows.

Interviewer: So, like Dodd, you’ve become a sanctimonious philosopher.

JO: I hope not. Like I said, I’m a beginner. I’m still learning.

God save us all from becoming like “the Master”—someone who treats those who disagree with him as enemies, who calls them names and spews vitriol.

We explore a movie as if we were exploring a forest—we all find different paths, troubles, and rewards. Best to share our experiences humbly. Otherwise, we’ll make people want to walk out on us… as if we were a terrible movie.

THANK YOU for this! As an English teacher at a somewhat fundamentalist Christian school, such conversations are rarely far from my mind (right now I’m reading the Hunger Games because some of my students want to use it in class, while another one sounds very much like your interlocutor).

I loved how you revealed that the interviewer was a younger version of yourself. It gave the piece so much hope.

T.Martin Lesh.

For what its worth I loved this movie . As with the directors previous movie ” There Will Be Blood ‘ there is no sparing the audience the gritty and ugly details of human existence and to what extent we will go to achieve our set goals when there are little or no ethics involved in our decision making . ” There Will Be Blood ” showing the realities of the early days of the American Oil Industry : and ” The Master ” exposing the depravation and self centered goals of a Cult Leader ( specifically L. Ron Hubbard ) and the people they are willing to use ( as well as expose to the general public ) in order to further their Agenda .

Life is Ugly , Harsh and sometimes Cruel therefore occasionally a Movie , Book or Play needs to expose that aspect of life to what is an overwhelming sheltered general public that watches such movies . So be it Cults , Industry etc I applaud such creative and well crafted endeavors such as ” The Master ”

As a small caveat though . Like Habanero Peppers or Vindaloo Curry they should be enjoyed occasionally and in small doses .

Justin Hanvey

“You see, I learned a lot about light by thinking about shadows.” This reminds me of the George Macdonald story I read last night, about two characters named Photogen and Nycteris. Both are raised by an evil witch in isolation. Photogen is bred to live in the light, and never allowed to see the dark. He is very brave in the light, but when it becomes night, and he steals out in rebellion to see it he becomes terrified, and becomes a coward. Nycteris on the other hand is bred only in the dark, with only a lamp to see by, so she loves the night…well, either way the story compares and contrasts them, brings them together in beautiful ways, and shows how the night illuminates the day. It’s probably my most favorite short story by him right now.

Ted Seeber

I think JJ Abrams read that book, and turned it into a TV show called Lost.

Wonderful. I’m sure Flannery would approve. “Art never responds to the wish to make it democratic; it is not for everybody; it is only for those who are willing to undergo the effort needed to understand it.”

Wayne

Hats off to Jeff Overstreet for his review, but even more to director Paul Thomas Anderson. Given the conversations this startling, demanding movie has already sparked in my little friendship circle and now here in cyberspace, “The Master” is hitting a bull’s eye worthy of its extraordinary cast, screenplay and direction. It does indeed take the night to illuminate the day.

suburbanbanshee

Haven’t seen the film, but all the reviews made me think it was sailor Hubbard meets cult leader Hubbard. I guess pulp author Hubbard doesn’t get to play.

Ted Seeber

Better than me, I’m just an autistic with what David Keirsey (of the Keirsey-Meyers-Briggs Temperament Sorter Fame) calls a “Fascination with the Holy and the Profane”. I think this movie fits into that later category, based on your initial review- so I think maybe one day I’ll watch it. But only when it is on late night TV and the kid is at a sleepover and the wife is out of the house.

Ben

I had a similar conversation with a fundamentalist friend but it was about ‘Moonrise Kingdom.’